THE QUALITY OF FANCY YARN: PART II: PRACTICAL EXPERIMENTS AND
APPLICATION
MALEK ALSHUKUR
School of Textiles and Design, Heriot-Watt University, Galashiels, the UK
Department of Textiles & Technology, Faculty of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Damascus University,
Damascus, Syria
ABSTRACT
The concepts, parameters of assessing the structure, appearance and quality of several types of fancy yarn were
presented in in Part I of this paper. Further, the methods, procedures and apparati needed to apply such concepts and
parameters were also detailed in Part I. In Part II of this paper, however, those methods were applied to account for the
structure and quality of several overfed fancy yarns, gimp yarns and bouclé yarns. The Area of Fancy Profile, the Number
of Fancy Profiles, the Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn (ShF), the Relative Shape of Fancy Yarn (RSI) and Circularity Ratio of
Fancy Profile (CR) were used to account for those types of fancy yarn. Based on those methods, it was possible to assess
the structure and quality of the fancy yarns and to arrange them in ascending (or descending) order in terms of their quality,
e.g. texture, structure, and fancy bulkiness. Further, a comparison between those methods and the traditional subjective
method of quality assessments of fancy yarns revealed high levels of agreement.
KEYWORDS: Overfed Fancy Yarn, Gimp Yarn, Bouclé Yarn, the Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn, the Relative Shape
Index of Fancy Yarn, the Area of Fancy Profile, the Number of Fancy Profiles, the Circularity Ratio of Fancy Profile.
INTRODUCTION
Gimp yarn is defined as: “a compound yarn consisting of a twisted core with an effect yarn wrapped around it so
as to produce wavy projections on its surface” (Gong & Wright, 2002). The effect component could be one or more strands
(Tortora & Merkel, 2005), but it is usually thicker and coarser than the core component(s) (Denton & Daniels, 2002;
Tortora & Merkel, 2005). Gimp yarns, bouclé yarns and loop yarns belong to the same group of fancy yarn. However,
whilst the effect on the surface of gimp yarns are semi-circular corrugations, they are irregular, semi-circular loops in
bouclé yarns and circular loops in loop yarns (Denton & Daniels, 2002). Regardless of the method of making them, gimp
yarns have a general structure as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Gimp Yarn Structure, Adapted from (Gong & Wright, 2002)
Bouclé profiles take usually the shape provided in Figure 2 in which they are open projections but not circular
(Gong & Wright, 2002). The term “bouclé profile” also refers to a fancy profile which has the shape of one phase of sine
wave where the height of this phase is greater than, or equal to, the width of the base of this phase. Bouclé yarns may have
other profiles which is similar to bouclé profiles, and they may be called either semi-bouclé profiles or bouclé-like profiles.
International Journal of Textile and Fashion Technology (IJTFT) ISSN 2250-2378 Vol. 3, Issue 1, Mar 2013, 25-38 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.
They are usually semi-twisted but not completely closed and may include U-shaped profiles; elongated loop profiles,
which may be semi-circular, closed profiles; and open-based, flexed bouclé profiles. Those semi-bouclé profiles may result
on the fancy yarn surface due to three reasons. The first reason is winding of the bouclé yarn on packages. The second
reason is internal stresses in the effect thread, e.g. when the effect thread(s) is an unbalanced ply yarn. The third reason is a
defective effect thread that has at least a point having relatively low value of bending stiffness which makes the thread
bends irregularly. Bouclé projections are the apparent bouclé profiles which protrude on the yarn surface and can be
identified readily. They need no further effort to make sure they exist. They usually attract the attention of an assessor of
bouclé yarns. The other types of bouclé profile which exist on the yarn surface, but they do not project over the yarn
surface are called unapparent bouclé profiles. Those unapparent bouclé profiles lie on the yarn surface because of the
winding process, unbalanced ply effect thread or due to defects in the effect thread(s) and they are not easily visible.
Due to their importance, this study will apply the objective methods, concepts and parameters suggested by the
author in Part I of this paper to assess the quality of gimp yarns, boucle yarns and overfed fancy yarns (Alshukur, 2013).
Figure 2: Structure of Bouclé Yarn, adapted from (Rameshkumar)
THE APPLICATION OF THE OBJECTIVE METHODS TO ASSESS THE STRUCTURE AND
QUALITY OF GIMP YARNS AND OVERFED FANCY YARNS
The Shape Factor of Fancy Yarns (ShF), measured in mm2/m, was used to assess the quality of the gimp yarns.
The ShF = N· A where N is the Number of Fancy Profiles, i.e. average number of the non-gimp profiles in a unit length of
the gimp yarn, (measured usually in m-1
for gimp yarns), and A is the Area of Fancy Profile, i.e. the average area (or size)
of non-gimp profile (measured usually mm2). To use the ShF to evaluate the structure and quality of gimp yarn, one needs
to follow the following procedures:
1. The normal structure of any gimp yarn is usually perfect sigmoidal as provided in Figure 1. Based on the methods
of Part I of this paper, this kind of structure needs no further measurement.
2. The value of the ShF=0 mm2/m for gimp yarns that have sigmoidal configuration of the structure.
3. Deviations from such a sigmoidal structure will appear on the surface of gimp yarn as a few non-gimp
projections.Those can be fancy projections of various shapes, i.e. bouclé profiles, arches, bunches, knots, etc., and
are described as abnormal projections on the gimp yarn surface.
4. Abnormal projections may be measured using the Number of Fancy Profiles, the Area of Fancy Profile, the Shape
Factor of Fancy Yarn and the Circularity Ratio of Fancy Profile.
5. The smaller the value of the ShF of those non-gimp profiles the better the quality of gimp yarns.
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 27
6. Using the value of the ShF, the quality of gimp yarns may be excellent, very good, good, acceptable or poor. This
last category cannot be sold as a gimp yarn, but it can be sold as a general overfed fancy yarn which does not have
any specific commercial designation or name.
7. Finally, to compare the relative fancy bulkiness of several gimp yarns, one may use the value of the Relative
Shape Index of Fancy Yarn (RSI). The RSI is given by the formula RSI = ShF / Ttex where Ttex is the linear
density of the fancy yarn in tex.
Three experiments were conducted to show the applicability of the quality methods of Part I this paper to gimp yarns
and overfed fancy yarns. For all these experiments it was observed that some of the fancy yarns were overfed fancy yarns
and had no any other commercial description. Therefore, they were tested within the gimp fancy yarn group. The three
experiments were conducted as follows:
• Experiment I to make gimp yarns and overfed fancy yarn using various input yarns, machine settings and fancy
yarn structural parameters.
• Experiment II to make three groups of fancy yarns based on three groups of input yarns.
• Experiment III to make three group of fancy yarns based on three value of the overfeed ratio.
Materials and Machine Settings of Experiment I, Experiment II and Experiment III
Types and forms of the constituent threads were used to make the gimp yarns for Experiment I are provided in
Table 1.
Table 1: The Input Materials Used to Make the Gimp Yarns for Experiment I
Yarn Number Effect Component Core Component Binder
1 24s/3 bamboo 20s cotton polyester 167/34
2 30s/3 cotton 20s cotton polyester 167/34
3 24s/3 bamboo 20s cotton nylon 145/77
4 30s/3 cotton 20s cotton nylon 145/77
5 24s/3 bamboo 30s/2 cotton polyester 167/34
6 30s/3 cotton 30s/2 cotton polyester 167/34
7 24s/3 bamboo 30s/2 cotton nylon 145/77
8 30s/3 cotton 30s/2 cotton nylon 145/77
The gimp yarns were made on a hollow-spindle spinning machine Gemmill & Dunsmore 3 (i.e. fancy twister
G&D3). The machine settings, given in Table 2, were altered (from fancy yarn to another) so as to change the structural
parameters of the resultant gimp yarns.
Table 2: Machine Settings and Main Structural Parameters Used to Make the Fancy Yarns of Experiment I
Yarn Number
Machine Settings Main Yarn Structural parameters
Supply Speed (m/min)
Delivery Speed (m/min)
Rotation Speed (rpm)
The Number of Wraps (wpm)
The Overfeed
Ratio (%)
Number of Core Threads
1 95 70 21000 300 135 2
2 95 60 16000 266.63 158 2
3 85 60 21000 350 141 2
4 85 70 16000 228.57 121 2
5 85 70 16000 228.57 121 1
6 85 60 21000 350 141 1
7 95 60 16000 266.63 158 1
8 95 70 21000 300 135 1
Types and forms of the constituent threads were used to make the gimp yarns for Experiment II are provided in
Table 3. In this experiment, modifications were made to the structure so as to change the structure and quality of the fancy
yarns. The yarns made were classified into three groups were each group of fancy yarn were made using the same input
threads. For this experiment the delivery speed of the hollow-spindle spinning machine was 60 m·min-1
.
Table 3: The Input Materials and Main Structural Parameters Used to Make the Gimp Yarns for Experiment II
Yarn
Number
The Overfeed
Ratio (%)
The Number of
Wraps (wpm)
Group of
Fancy
Yarn
Effect Component Core Component Binder
1 158 266.63
Group 1 24s/3 bamboo 30s/2 cotton nylon 14.5/77
2 158 330
3 120 276.6 Group 2
Super soft wool 2/11.3
Nm ( R177/2 tex)
Combed cotton
Ne=14s/3 (R126/3 tex) Polyester 16.7/34
4 130 300
5 125 300
Group 3 acrylic, Ne=16s/2
(R70/2 tex)
Cotton Ne=30s/2,
(R40/2 tex) Polyester 16.7/34 6 135 300
7 155 300
The input materials and the type of the constituent threads were used to make the gimp yarns for Experiment III
are provided in Table 4. In this experiment material type was not changed when making the gimp yarns but the yarn
structural parameters, i.e. mainly the overfeed ratio (η%) and the number of wraps(W), were altered. For this experiment
the delivery speed of the hollow-spindle spinning machine was 60 m·min-1
.
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 29
Table 4: The Input Materials and Main Structural Parameters Used to Make the Gimp Yarns for Experiment III
Yarn Number The Number of Wraps (wpm)
The Overfeed Ratio (%)
Group of Fancy Yarn
Effect Component
Core Component Binder
1 225
130 Group 1
twisted ring-spun
cotton yarn,
Ne=16s/2
two parallel open-
end rotor-spun
cotton yarns
Ne=20s each
textured multi-
filament yarn,
167/34
2 325
3 225
140 Group 2
4 280
5 225
150 Group 3 6 315
7 350
The number of specimens sampled to measure the linear density of each yarn was 6. The number of specimens
used to measure the size of non-gimp profiles and their circularity ratio was 31. The number of specimens used to count the
number of non-gimp profiles was 16. The specimens were preconditioned then conditioned in a standard atmosphere, i.e.
temperature 20±2 Co and relative humidity RH=65±4, in accordance with ISO 139:2005 (BSI). The linear density were
measured in accordance with ISO 2060:1995 (BSI).
Experiment I: Results and Discussions
Images of the fancy yarns made for Experiment I are shown in Figure 3. Those yarns were tested and the results
are given in Table 5. Further, the subjective assessments of the same yarns, also given in the same table, was documented
against the calculations of the author’s objective method of quality assessment of fancy yarn. Although it is common to
obtain the viewpoints of a panel of experts when studying the aesthetics of textile materials, it was difficult to find more
than one expert in fancy yarn to consult them and ask them to rate the fancy yarns of this study.
Bearing in mind that the ShF was calculated to measure non-gimp profiles and other uneven projections of the
effect component on the surface of gimp yarns, so the smaller the value of the ShF the better the quality of gimp yarns.
When a comparison was conducted between the subjective method and the objective method, similar results were obtained.
However, the accuracy of the objective method over the subjective method was revealed when comparing those two
methods for fancy yarn 2 and fancy yarn 7. The expert, who was consulted, preferred the former over the latter. The expert
considered gimp yarn 2 to have an acceptable-quality while gimp yarn 7 was deemed to have “poor-quality”. However, the
calculations of the objective method, i.e. the value of the ShF, indicated the opposite. This is because the ShF = 322.79
mm2/m for fancy yarn 7, while it was greater for fancy yarn 2, i.e. 376.72 mm
2/m.
In terms of the relative fancy bulkiness of those fancy yarns regardless of material types, machine settings or
structural parameters, the values of the RSI was useful. Those values increased from 0 mm2/m·tex for yarn 1, yarn 3 and
yarn 5 up to 2.09 mm2/m·tex for yarn 2. This indicates that the order of those gimp yarns in terms of the non-gimp fancy
bulkiness was yarn 1, yarn 3, yarn 5, yarn 4, yarn 6, yarn 8, yarn 7 and finally yarn 2. It is important to state that this
ascending order of relative fancy bulkiness is for non-gimp profiles, i.e. for distortion of the gimp yarn structure.
Therefore, yarn 2 represented the gimp yarn which had the poorest quality.
Yarn 1
Yarn 2
Yarn 3
Yarn 4
Yarn 5
Yarn 6
Yarn 7
Yarn 8
Figure 3: Images of the Fancy Gimp Yarns and Overfed Fancy Yarns Made for Experiment I
Table 5: The Results of Experiment I: The Objective Assessment and the Subjective Assessment
Yarn
Number
Linear Density
(tex)
Number of Non-
gimp Profiles
(m-1)
Size of non-
gimp Profiles
(mm2)
ShF
(mm2/m) RSI
(mm2/m·tex)
Subjective Assessment of Yarn Quality
1 188.99 1.40 Not applicable Approximately
0 0 excellent
2 179.98 66.80 5.64 376.72 2.09 acceptable
3 191.27 0.00 Not applicable 0 0 very good
4 150.85 7.60 4.43 33.66 0.22 very good
5 154.79 0.80 Not applicable 0 0 excellent
6 145.60 15.80 2.95 46.61 0.32 very good
7 178.70 62.80 5.14 322.79 1.80 poor
8 138.04 3.95 28.40 112.16 0.81 good
Experiment II: Results and Discussions
Images of the fancy yarns made for this experiment are given in Figure 4. Those yarns were tested and results are
given in Table 6.
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 31
Yarn 1
Yarn 2
Yarn 3
Yarn 4
Yarn 5
Yarn 6
Yarn 7
Figure 4: Images of Fancy Gimp Yarns and Overfed Fancy Yarn Made for Experiment II
Table 6: The Results of Experiment II: The Objective Assessment and the Subjective Assessment
Yarn Number
Linear Density (tex)
Number of Non-gimp Profiles
(m-1)
Size of non-gimp
Profiles (mm2)
The Circularity
Ratio of Non-gimp Profiles
(%)
ShF (mm2/m)
RSI (mm2/m·tex)
Subjective Assessment of Yarn Quality
1 178.7 62.80 5.14 44 322.79 1.80 Poor
2 180.51 41 3.80 46 155.8 0.86 good
3 390.8 0 0 Not applicable 0 0 very good
4 413.23 0 0 Not applicable 0 0 very good
5 153 0 0 Not applicable 0 0 good
6 162.36 32 4.66 63 149.12 0.91 excellent
7 177.18 68.2 5.37 56 366.23 2.06 very good
Comparisons between yarn 1 & yarn 2, yarn 3 & yarn 4, and yarn 5 & yarn 6 & yarn 7 were followed. This table
indicates that the fancy yarns of each group were different in structure and quality. The overall quality of yarns improved
due to reductions in the number of non-gimp profiles. Further, the comparison between the objective method of the author
and the traditional, subjective method of assessment of fancy yarn indicated high level of agreement. For example,
although made using the same input materials, yarn 2 had better structure that yarn 1 because the value of ShF of yarn 2
was almost half that of yarn 1, i.e. 155.8 mm2/m versus 322.79 mm
2/m. Additionally, the subjective assessment indicates
that the quality improved from “poor-quality” into “good-quality” gimp yarn.
In terms of accuracy, it was confirmed that the objective method suggested by the author is more accurate than the
subjective method. For example, when comparing yarn 5 & yarn 6 & yarn 7 using the value of the ShF, Table 6 shows that
the value of the ShF increased from 0 to 149.12 mm2/m to 366.23 mm
2/m respectively. This means that yarn 5 had the best
quality, then yarn 6 and finally yarn 7. However, the assessor ranked the gimp yarn of cone 6 as the “best-quality” gimp
yarn and appraised it to have “excellent-quality”, while yarn 5 was appreciated to have only “good-quality” gimp yarns. It
is also understood from Table 6 that:
• Yarn 5 did not have any non-gimp profiles on its surface. However, the assessor subjectively considered it to be a
“good-quality” gimp yarn because the assessor believed it had a structure which was nearly closed and wavy-shaped.
• Yarn 6 represents a gimp yarn which had on average 32 non-gimp fancy projections (which were in most cases bouclé
profiles) per meter on its surface, with an average size equalling 4.66 mm2. In spite of the existence of several non-
gimp projections, the assessor subjectively considered it to be an “excellent-quality” gimp yarn as the assessor
believed that the yarn structure was more open than the previous case. However, the value of the ShF for this yarn was
relatively high and therefore it cannot be considered to be an ‘excellent-quality’ gimp yarn.
• A disagreement between the objective assessment and the subjective assessment was clear for yarn 7. The assessor
ranked the yarn as a ‘very good’ gimp yarn because the assessor believed that the yarn structure was “open”. Using the
objective method of assessment, however, there were 68.2 non-gimp profiles per meter on average on the yarn surface,
with an average size of almost 5.37 mm2. Therefore, the ShF was 366.23 mm
2/m for this yarn. This meant that there
were 366.23 mm2 of distortion to the structure, distributed on each metre of the yarn. Accordingly, the yarn structure
was highly distorted from the standard structure of gimp yarns (Figure 1). Even though such a yarn is still
“considered” to be fancy yarn, its structure was a combination of several profiles, mainly gimp profiles, bouclé and
irregular bouclé profiles, loops, closed thin projections, closed loops, etc.
• Since there were no non-gimp profiles on the surface of yarns 3, 4 and 5, it was unpractical to calculate the value of
the ShF for these yarns. However, the assessor subjectively ranked the quality of these gimp yarns as “very good” or
“good” but not “excellent” as the assessor thought the yarn structure of them was “so closed. The assessor also thought
that they might be similar to simple wavy yarns while the resultant “closed” structure was due to the thick input
threads which were used to make these gimp yarns. It is important to know that gimp yarns are defined a form of wavy
yarns (Gong & Wright, 2002; Meadwell, 2004). Additionally, author of this paper also considers gimp yarns, wavy
yarns, ratiné and frisé yarns as different names for the same structure. Therefore, yarn 5 may be ranked as “excellent”
by the author of this paper.
Regarding the relative fancy bulkiness of the gimp yarns of Experiment II regardless of material types, machine
settings or structural parameters, the value of RSI was used. The interpretation of this parameter for gimp yarns is that the
higher the value of RSI the higher the abnormal bulkiness of gimp yarns and thus the lower the quality of the gimp yarn.
Therefore, Table 6 indicates that the values of RSI of those yarns increased from 0 mm2/m·tex for yarn 3, yarn 4 and yarn 5
up to 2.06 mm2/m·tex for yarn 7 “best-quality” gimp yarns were yarn 3, yarn 4 and yarn 5, then yarn 2 through yarn 6 and
yarn 1 while the lowest quality was for yarn 7.
Experiment III: Results and Discussions
The yarns made for Experiment III are shown in Figure 5. The results of the objective assessment and the
subjective assessment of them are given in Table 7. It is clear that only one obvious disagreement between these two
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 33
methods was shown for fancy yarn 2. The assessor considered this yarn to be wavy yarn because the assessor indicated that
the structure of this fancy yarn was “closed”. However, as mentioned previously, gimp yarn is defined a form of wavy
yarns (Gong & Wright, 2002; Meadwell, 2004). Therefore, the author considers this fancy yarn to have an “excellent-
quality”.
Yarn 1
Yarn 2
Yarn 3
Yarn 4
Yarn 5
Yarn 6
Yarn 7
Figure 5: Images of Fancy Gimp Yarns and Overfed Fancy Yarn Made for Experiment III
The gimp yarns of this experiment were compared in terms of their structure and quality regardless of their
thicknesses (tex), raw materials, machine settings and structural parameters (i.e. η% and W) using the RSI. The lowest
values of the RSI, i.e. 0 mm2/m·tex, were for “excellent-quality” gimp yarns. The “very good-quality” gimp yarns had
slightly higher values of the RSI. Further, the quality of the gimp yarns diminished when the values of the RSI were high.
Therefore, the quality of those yarns decreases from yarn 2, through yarns 7, 1, 4, 5, to yarns 6 & 3 as the value of the RSI
increased respectively in the same order
Table 7: The Results of Experiment III: The Objective Assessment versus the Subjective Assessment
Yarn Number
Linear Density (tex)
Number of Non-gimp Profiles
(m-1)
Size of non-gimp
Profiles (mm2)
The Circularity
Ratio of Non-gimp Profiles
(%)
ShF (mm2/m)
RSI (mm2/m·tex)
Subjective Assessment of Yarn Quality
1 182 14 5.397 50.6 75.558 0.41 good to very good
2 183.65 0 0 Not applicable 0 0 poor
3 185 24 6.27 53 150.48 0.81 acceptable
4 190.65 24.4 4.18 59 102.41 0.53 very good
5 195 26 5.718 48.5 148.66 0.76 poor
6 198.19 36.4 4.38 53 159.43 0.80 excellent
7 194.18 16 4.04 53 64.64 0.33 very good to
excellent
THE APPLICATION OF THE OBJECTIVE METHODS TO EVALUATE BOUCLÉ YARN
STRUCTURE AND QUALITY
Bouclé projections, bouclé profiles, semi-bouclé projections and semi-bouclé profiles were considered in this
study when they were not considered defects on the structure. It was possible to check the reason for obtaining the
unapparent bouclé profiles by a manual attempt to raise such profiles. The reason that they were there was the winding
process when those profiles did not collapse back to lie on the structure. Therefore, they were considered while counting
the bouclé profiles and measuring their size. However, when those profiles result from defects in the effect thread(s), they
normally return back to lie on the yarn surface. Those fancy profiles were not considered bouclé profiles. Subsequently,
they were excluded from counting and measurements.
The Shape Factor of Fancy Yarns (ShF), measured in mm2/m, was used to assess the quality of the bouclé yarns.
The ShF = N· A where N is the Number of Fancy Profiles, i.e. average number of the bouclé profiles in a unit length of the
gimp yarn, (measured usually in dm-1
or m-1
bouclé yarns), and A is the Area of Fancy Profile, i.e. the average area (or
size) of the bouclé profile (measured usually mm2).
Materials, Machine Settings and Yarn Structural Parameters for Experiment IV
Input materials of different types, forms and performance characteristics, were used to make the bouclé yarns
needed for Experiment IV. Table 8 shows the materials selected for the different levels of the experiment. Two similar
effect components in the form of ply yarns were used to make the final bouclé fancy yarns for it was unpractical to obtain
satisfactory structure for the bouclé yarn by using only one effect component. Additionally, one core yarn and a binder
were needed. The supply speed of the effect threads was 66 m/min, the delivery speed of the whole fancy yarn was 30
m/min and the rotational speed of the hollow spindle was 8400 rpm. Therefore, the overfeed ratio of the effect threads was
(66/30)×100=220% while the number of wraps of the binder was 8400/30=280 wrap per metre (wpm). Since the input
threads used for the effect components varied considerably in terms of their thicknesses, i.e. linear density, it was also
difficult to choose a number of wraps suitable to all thicknesses. Therefore, the number of wraps used was mostly suitable
for the finer and medium thicknesses rather than the thick effect components.
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 35
Table 8: Materials Used to Make Bouclé Yarns for Experiment IV
Yarn Number Core Component Effect Component Binder
1 cotton, R72/3 tex flexible acrylic, R72/2 tex
polyester
Multi-
Filament,
R16.7/34
tex
2 cotton, R72/3 tex purewool, R120/2 tex
3 cotton, R72/3 tex acrylic multi-filament, 140 tex
4 cotton/lambswool, R120/2 tex flexible acrylic, R72/2 tex
5 cotton/lambswool, R120/2 tex purewool, R120/2 tex
6 cotton/lambswool, R120/2 tex acrylic multi-filament, 140 tex
7 acrylic multi-filament, 140 tx flexible acrylic, R72/2 tex
8 acrylic multi-filament, 140 tex purewool, R120/2 tex
9 acrylic multi-filament, 140 tex acrylic multi-filament, 140 tex
The number of specimens used to measure the linear density of the yarns was 6. The number of specimens used to
measure the size of non-gimp profiles and their circularity ratio was 30. The number of specimens used to count the
number of non-gimp profiles was 16. The specimens of the fancy yarns were preconditioned then conditioned in a standard
atmosphere, i.e. temperature 20±2 Co and relative humidity RH=65±4, in accordance with ISO 139:2005 (BSI). The linear
density were measured in accordance with ISO 2060:1995 (BSI).
Experiment IV: Results and Discussions
Images of the fancy yarns made for Experiment IV are given in Figure 6 and the results of testing procedure are
given in Table 9. All bouclé yarns which had the value of the Circularity Ratio of Fancy (Bouclé) Profile exceeding 0.60
was considered to have good quality, e.g. yarn 1, yarn 4, yarn 7 and yarn 8. The other yarns had inferior quality and yarn 6
had the poorest quality.
In terms of the absolute fancy bulkiness for these bouclé yarns, the value of the ShF indicated that this property
decreased starting from yarn 7 (the highest value of the ShF), to yarn 1, yarn 8, yarn 4, yarn 5, yarn 9, yarn 2, yarn 3 and
finally yarn 6. To account for the relative fancy bulkiness of these bouclé yarns, the value of the Relative Shape Index of
Fancy Yarn (RSI) was used and it indicated that the best result was obtained for yarn 1. The relative fancy bulkiness
decreased for yarn 7, yarn 4, yarn 8, yarn 2, yarn 5, yarn 3 and finally yarn 9 which had the lowest fancy bulkiness.
Using the previous calculations, it was confirmed that the selected values of the structural parameters of the
bouclé yarns proved to be suitable for the finer effect components, i.e. the flexible acrylic ply yarns R72/2 tex, because
they had the highest values of ShF, RSI, and CR. Conversely, the values of these three parameters were the lowest for the
thickest effect yarns, i.e. the acrylic multi-filament yarn that had the linear density 140 tex. These findings can be exploited
to improve the structure of bouclé yarns. This can be accomplished through modifying the values selected for the structural
parameters of the fancy yarn, mainly the overfeed ratio and the number of wraps, but this is outwith the scope of this study.
Yarn 1
Yarn 2
Yarn 3
Yarn 4
Yarn 5
Yarn 6
Yarn 7
Yarn 8
Yarn 9
Figure 6: Images of Fancy Bouclé Yarns and Fancy Semi-Bouclé Yarns Made for Experiment IV
Table 9: Results of the Experiment IV: The Objective Assessment versus the Subjective Assessment
Yarn Number Linear Density
(tex) Circularity Ratio (%)
Size of Bouclé Profiles (mm2)
Number of Bouclé
Profiles (dm1) ShF (mm2/dm)
RSI (mm2/m.Tex)
1 411.27 60 10.29 20 205.800 5.004
2 636.03 55 11.93 12.7 151.511 2.382
3 697.46 56 14.98 9.6 143.808 2.061
4 457.31 61 9.83 16.6 163.178 3.568
5 687.19 57 10.59 15.2 160.968 2.342
6 757.67 49 14.15 9.9 140.085 1.848
7 491.53 61 12.03 20 240.600 4.894
8 713.02 64 10.24 17.8 173.056 2.427
9 792.03 55 13.15 11.8 155.170 1.959
It is important to mention that the author did not have equipment to make fancy yarns that have elongated fancy
profiles so as to compare their quality characteristics using the Actual Length of Elongated Fancy Profile (AL), the Total
Length of Elongated Fancy Profiles (TL) and the Fancy Length Index of Fancy Yarn (FLI). However, the application of
these quality concepts for fancy yarn with elongated fancy profiles should follow a similar approach.
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 37
CONCLUSIONS
The objective methods of assessment of the structure, quality and appearance of fancy yarn were applied in Part II
of this paper to test, calculate, estimate and compare the quality of several gimp yarns, overfed yarns and bouclé yarns. The
values of mainly the Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn, the Relative Shape Index of Fancy Yarn and the Circularity Ratio of
Fancy Profile were used to define the gimp yarns and bouclé yarns which had the best quality, amongst others made for
this of research. Further, a comparison between the methods suggested in this research and the viewpoint of an expert in
fancy yarn proved a high degree of agreement. Furthermore, the yarns made in for this research were arranged in ascending
order of their relative fancy bulkiness. Moreover, the objective methods of in this research were more reliable and accurate
than any subjective assessment of the fancy yarns. This study indicates that it is possible use the scientific, objective
methods of this research to resolve disputes, related to fancy yarn structure and quality, which might arise between buyers
and manufactures or sellers of fancy yarns. Additionally, those methods can even be used to resolve disputes between
different experts in fancy yarn should they appear. It must be emphasised that the objective concepts, parameters and
methods of this research accounts for only the aesthetic, texture and structure of fancy yarns and do not solely cover or
give provision for all quality characteristics of fancy yarn such as handle, colour, etc.
REFERENCES
1. Alshukur, M. (2013). The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part I: Methods and Concepts. International Journal of Textile
and Fashion Technology, 3(1), 11-24.
2. BSI. Textiles- Standard atmospheres for conditioning and testing BS EN ISO 139:2005 European Committee for
Standardization.
3. BSI. Textiles- Yarn from packages-Determination of linear density (mass per unit length) by the skein method BS
EN ISO 2060:1995 European Committee for Standardization.
4. Denton, M. J., & Daniels, P. N. (Eds.). (2002) (11 ed.). Manchester, The UK: The Textile Institute.
5. Gong, R. H., & Wright, R. M. (2002). Fancy yarns: Their manufacture and application. Cambridge, The UK:
Woodhead Publishing Limited.
6. Meadwell, E. S. (2004). An Exploration of Fancy Yarn Creation. Degree of Master of Science, North Carolina
State University, North Carolina.
7. Rameshkumar, C. Fancy Yarns for Fashion. Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, PSG College of
Technology. Coimbatore.
8. Tortora, P. G., & Merkel, R. S. (Eds.). (2005) (7th ed.). New York, The USA: Fairchild Publication.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to Dr. Alex Fotheringham and Andrew McCullough of Heriot-Watt University, the School of
Textile and Design for their help and support.
